Alternate Activations is NOT the Best?

[@chadnine3432]

Personal preference: I'd much rather deal with the problems of alternate activations than UGOIGO.

[@TheShagamemnon]

1000% agree

[@Mercenary0712]

My group first started to play OPR. After a while, we tried a single game of 40k. After two turns, we were both missing OPR. We still play an occasional game of the old World, but that's something we do once every few months.

[@TorianTammas]

you go i go is a 5 year kids approach in which they destroy each others sand castle

[@Dylan-er9ji]

I'm 2 seconds into the video and jumping into the comments section to get angry

[@Orkimedes-sc8ef]

this is the way

[@paulkasasian7990]

So I to am a games designer, and my game Void Admiral uses true alternating activations. I find that it works pretty well for space combat and I don't find action economy to be an obvious game winner. One thing that really helps is having access to some sort of defensive action. In Void Admiral ships can "seal their hatches" instead of shooting. This means that if a ship is out of place and has to activate before their opponent has revealed themselves, then they have the capacity to sure up their defenses (lasting until the unit is next activates). One rule I took from One Page Rules is that whatever player finishes activating first always gets to activate first in the next turn. A lot of the time it's good to go second in turn one (as you have more time to maneuver and set up your engagements), but in turn two when the guns come out, it's better to go first. This means that the larger fleet has a placement advantage while the smaller fleet has a firepower advantage. Terrain is also a huge factor. Boards with lots of terrain usually tend to punish players who spam cheap squadrons. A lot of the time when I see players complaining about how unfair and one sided a game is, it's because they aren't playing with sufficient terrain to make the game truly tactical.

[@crikeymiles]

Hi five for Void Admiral! Great job!

[@GlassHalfDead]

If it isn't initiative based alternating phases, I'm not interested!

[@kineticfunk]

2 seconds in and the correct and only choice is alternate activation's, no one wants to go second and sit there just taking their models off the table for 30-45 minutes (sometimes longer, looking at you horde armies. ) plus it to me feels more like an actual battle with people reacting to the play from the other sides model/squad activation. idk it just feels better imo and i will die on this hill.

[@kineticfunk]

hmmm he made some really good points lol

[@MWG_Matthew]

lol thanks for watching to the end! :)

[@podrek]

the majority of IGOUGO games don't really have that problem, its only really been more recent editions of 40k. IGOUGO is primarily a system based around movement and positioning, you position all of your stuff and then chip away at the enemy force, needing to heavily concentrate your elements to remove enemy elements in a single turn and having the trade off of not having as much presence across the battlefield. This is pretty realistic to how large battles work on a grand scale, which is what IGOUGO should be used for. Older editions of 40k had a lot less stuff, and far less lethality when it came to the shooting phase, so you were never stuck removing all your stuff for 30 minutes. You had to choose between objectives and destroying enemy units, and often objectives were only scored at the end of the game meaning you not only had to remove enemy units but keep yours alive too, and troops for a while were the only unit type able to score which again meant you needed to avoid the trading that is common today in 40k. the way 40k is designed currently does not work with the IGOUGO system because lethality is too high, mechanical synergy is baked into every interaction, and the game is too abstracted in its scoring system to fit with the intuitive nature of IGOUGO. Alternative Activation sounds good, but has so many knock on effects down the design pipeline that i don't think its benefits ever really overcome its issues. Activation spam, prioritizing unactivated unit removal, often busying the table with tokens and such to track what has activated, inherent baiting and trading tactics over sensible tactics, etc. Its far more "gamey" than representational of whatever conflict is being represented on the table. The amount of additional systems that have to be added to make Alternating Activations work well tends to result in removing the actual alternating of activations. On the flip side of it, often IGOUGO can be essentially segmented into a broken series of IGOUGO which works exceptionally well, having IGOUGO systems but separated by task. For example, MESBG having each phase being IGOUGO or lots of historical games either not allowing you, or not reliably allowing you, to activate everything on your turn, or having lots of the turn be simultaneously resolved. Id argue that a hybrid system built off of IGOUGO is going to be better than anything using alternating activations as its basis.

[@TorianTammas]

I go you go is the most boring system. It was my first step into wargames with warhammer. I immediately cherished chess and as we had two players on each side we played another game while we waited for I go you go to finish.

[@Tabletop_Standard]

Adeptus Titanicus 2018. Epic Armageddon.. Solid alternative action games

[@johnondich-batson9066]

They can suffer the issues of spamming activations, but much easier to mitigate than non alternate activation games.

[@MrLigonater]

10:33 it is amusing that in Battletech they have mitigated the Alphastrike with their rules design, but the term Alpha strike comes from Battletech.

[@rejusu8630]

No, it predates Battletech by at least 10-30 years. It was originally naval terminology.

[@billybobbobbington3097]

General Quarters (ww1/ww2 naval) had one of the best turn sequences ive seen. Player A does half his movement > Player B does ALL his movement > Player A completes his movement > Player A fires > Player B fires > all damage is applied > roll for damage repair/flooding/repairs Made for a turn that mitigated one player seeing all one players moves before deciding what to do and removed first shot advantage unless you engaged where the enemy COULDN'T return fire EDIT it made the turn feel "in real time"

[@andrewbakescakes9684]

That does sound really good. I am trying to work on a system to emulate "real time" and had a similar idea. Working out simultaneous movement is the hardest for me. It's easier to work out simultaneous shooting (just resolve after both have shot) and simultaneous "melee" (older 40K already had this, with Initiative breaking a tie), but movement is trickier.

[@Fearior]

​@@andrewbakescakes9684 Either initiative-based systems (like X-Wing, Battletech/Mechwarrior*, or Runewars) or planned movement mechanics (commonly found in naval games, where you plan each ship’s movement and resolve them simultaneously) are excellent for creating a “real-time” feeling. Another approach would involve a 'bidding' mechanic, where players use activation cards to determine both the number of actions they can take and who goes first (like in Star Wars Legion or V for Victory). Typically, choosing to do more actions means you’ll act second. *I particularly enjoy the video game system in Battletech, where the fastest mechs/Pilot can either move first or pass to a lower initiative (and continue passing at each initiative step/value). This lets them secure an advantageous position early or move last to react to others’ movements. Shooting, happens simultaneously - iirc from top of my head slowest mechs/pilots choose their targets first.

[@JMACCSArmiesOfMiddleEarth]

Correct me if Im wrong but I'm not sure you were playing GQ right as it's supposed to be simultaneous activation. Sounds like you were playing house rules. Both players should plot movement before moving. Both players show their plots and move at the same time.

[@billybobbobbington3097]

@JMACCSArmiesOfMiddleEarth With my track record there's a very good chance you're right 😆 We were playing GQ1 and 2 (if that makes a difference) and if I remember correctly those rules for secretly plotting courses were included as a suggested alternative. The only time I remember taking paper notes was when you were firing torpedoes because you had to guess what course the target ship would take in the next turn. I could have it wrong but I read those cute little rulebooks countless times

[@malkomalkavian]

We used to play a freeform game with any toys we could find battling all over the room. It was alternate activation, each player took turns. The other players could make reactive moves for each move that the others made, but they couldn't stop any action, only add other actions of their own. Good times.

[@hawksnestspeedway3043]

I like Bolt Action's system. I house ruled Flames of War to fit Bolt Action's system of orders, etc. I worked really well.

[@Redtecho]

No. Democracy is just flat garbage.

[@MWG_Matthew]

lol, that's not a bad way to put it @hawksnestspeedway3043. I even agree! For now at least. :)

[@MWG_Matthew]

And the first comment gets political! This should be good. ;)

[@GreySectoid]

Wasn't it copied from Warmaster?

[@morkar90]

@@GreySectoid They're quite different. Bolt action has dice for each player put into a bag and mixed up, and each turn a die is pulled from the bag to see who's turn it is next. In Warmaster, it's "I-GO-U-GO" but with the twist that you need to pass leadership checks to maneuver your units, meaning there's a big element of planning and setting yourself up for risky gambits and sweeping moves (it can also be a bit frustrating though).

[@DHYohko]

One Page Rules uses alternate activations and seems to work well. When you mentioned floods of throw away units to keep your main unit safe it reminded me of the old Star War miniatures game.

[@Mercenary0712]

Yeah, I was expecting OPR to get mentioned, since alternating activations are one of the selling points

[@Luebb]

I think it works in OPR for two reasons: one, the Force Organisation rules limits how many activations you can take with you per point level; and two, the person who did not do the last activation in a round gets to start the next round, which is very powerful as it allows you to immediately activate your heavy hitter or ambush units.

[@zramirez5471]

Dude how did Conquest LAoK not come up?? Alternate activations with very limited number of hero powers that allow one unit to immediately follow another

[@christoforosdrakiotis8987]

Ikr, i mean its alternating format with the card system is pretty interesting

[@tomasv8732]

Alternative activation system is the best because of one thing, and one thing only, and it beats any problems with it. It's the fact that you don't have to wait for 20-30 minutes to play. OPR is a great example, the system is bare bones, its not tactical, factions are designed badly and so on, but it's 40x more fun to play than 40k, because it's way more engaging. The issue with unit activations can be solved by taking the difference in total units of players, and allowing the player with less units to skip x-1 (x is the difference) activations. Problem solved.

[@luisbermudez4756]

Didn’t Legion just implement exactly this rule?

[@Stilghar]

That's what Malifaux does with its Pass Token system

[@thomashopkins3118]

With the exception of some poorly priced/costed things like V2 dakka stuarts in Bolt Action, the randomness of dice pulls helps force anti-competitive play, which is better IMHO. You brought up increasing your odds by having more cheap units, which is fair, except it turns the odds of going first with a single unit (more on snap-to) into 60/40 ish instead of 50/50. Not much of a negative IMHO, especially when compared to the abomination that is the AoS double-turn

[@GuyMaleMan]

Bolt action did really suffer from a very obvious meta, especially in V2. Basically the side who took more order dice usually had a pretty strong advantage. For instance if you took a list of veterans and your opponent took a bunch of chaff units with some heavy hitting artillery, there's a good chance that your opponent would pull their dice out first, maybe multiple, and pin out your best units so they're forced to rally and basically do nothing most of the game. Worse still if you decided to take something really expensive like a Tiger, you basically guaranteed you'd lose because your opponent would usually stack up pins on your unit before it could activate. Its a bit of a shame because it sometimes felt rule of cool fell to the wayside when it became clear what the best army builds were. To be clear, I think Bolt Action's activation system is phenomenal, much better that you go I go, and V3 has really made good steps on improving things, but I don't think its without flaws. Still a fantastic game.

[@patrikandersson8054]

Forget about "true" alternating activations. Why do you even need that term? Almost all variations of alternating activations are superior to Igo-Ugo. They make the game so much more interactive and interesting. My personal favorite is Epic Armageddon. Which is not true alternating, since you have the option of attempting two activations in a row, but there are costs associated with it.

[@katelystt]

Very interesting video Matt! Warcry (being my fav GW game) has actually added reactions and upped the pts value of 'chaff' to discourage the playstyle you've described so in a way it's also moved away from standard Alt Activations.

[@Knowasi]

Hey Matt, I completely agree with and find the same issues with most Alternate Activation games! Definitely love the Bolt Action/Ravaged Star variation where it introduces some randomness rather than straight up back and forth!

[@TGDisciple]

I have played one page rules and it does have an alternate activation system with the exception that when you fight the other squad fights as well with some minor limitations. This being said there is always going to be a need for "useless" unit in either 40k or alternating activation. In 40K/AoS they screen your units from charges or deep strike, while in OPR they force your opponent to activate units they may not want to activate yet. The advantage of alternative activations has over I go/you go is that your army can never be alpha striked. If there was ever a feel bad moment, its lossing the game before it started.

[@testprimeDA]

Alternate Activation allows for "being last striked". After the opponent finishes activating everything you can still have your elite stuff or 30 ish percent of your army to go and do a lot of damage. Some games like kill team tries to tackle this by giving you some worse activation if you finished doing your stuff, but I find this being a "pata fix".

[@Mercenary0712]

In OPR you also need your chaff to make bubbles to stop Ambushes/make them Ambush in bad spots. Especially needed when fighting Alien Hives

[@mattl_]

Loving these videos. This one sent me looking back at the videos you and Dave made showing how to play 40k and where to start with 40k from 13 years ago. While the game has changed a little, I’d love to see an updated version of the “where to start” video and maybe a video like that for a bunch of different games?

[@justinharris5971]

Hey Matt, I'm really loving these videos. They're helping me come up with better ideas for a tabletop game I am working on. Thank you and take care! 🙏

[@Thomps4991]

Adeptus Titanicus is an alternative activation which works. Dropzone commander is an alternative activation but you go with a fraction of our army which works very well with the scale of the game and makes it very fun to play

[@rpgmusik2172]

Kill Team, OnePageRules, and SW Legion handle alternate activations really well with just a few tweaks to the baseline scheme. The Group Activation mechanic in KT and OPR GFF helps rein in chaff units, and passes in Legion help nerf mass activation. For activations schemes, it's a lot easier to make AA fun than IGYG. Last-first is a feature, not a bug. It's something you can plan around to mitigate, and if initiative is random, it's not guaranteed.

[@cavehobbo]

As a primarily Battletech player I tend think of the 'Battletech way' with phases that the players alternate their units through instead of a one player doing everything the unit does for a turn all at once as the definition of 'alternate activations' and I usually think of the OPR style as some wonky subset; I agree that there are some major flaws with the method you describe, it doesn't solve the problem of totally losing something because you didn't go first at a certain turn. You touched on it with the uneven numbers of units rule (which I find works even better if you have the person with more units move more of them earlier rather than later), but the fact that damage doesn't go through till the end of a phase is the key that makes that system so great to me. It's also the case that you have to declare all your attacks before making them, so you don't know if you get a kill before you move on to your next unit, so maybe that was some influence on 'This is not a Test'. Being that it goes through all the phases just like WH or AOS, I feel like it would fit fairly easily into a house rule for those systems.

[@AmmiraglioMurray]

Hi Matt, the last version of Confrontation by Rackham worked perfectly with a tactical card deck to plan the alternate activation along with pass tokens to get the activations even.

[@Enigmatus23]

I’m firmly of the belief the system that middle earth strategy battle game has is the best

[@alekseylibernikel7606]

I love the 2018 Kill team activation system. It's just the best system in my opinion.

[@PureBrawler]

My man really defined his own term to win an argument. Half-jokes aside, OPR at its core rules is alternating activation by your standards. When you activate a unit, there is no way your opponent can do anything to interfere during your turn. Even in melee combat, your opponent can choose to not fight back to save their units' stamina otherwise they will become exhausted. There are advanced rules that muck this up only slightly, but they are optional. Warcaster is another game that is like OPR in that 99% of the time, you activate a unit and do your thing, and your opponent can't butt in. The 1% remaining comes from special counterattacks after the fact that can only be played by cypher cards your opponent plays during a previous turn of theirs, or by a very small number of units that have a special rule under specific conditions. Even then, that's not much different from your stricter AA melee combat rules.

[@Phytoon]

I really love Star Wars: Legion, and have tried to steal their alternate activation system for other things. The only thing is that it's not truly alternating activations, like you said. You have a pile of command tokens that correspond to the different types of units you can have, leader, operative, heavy, corps, and support. You can also assign command tokens to units by using order cards, and then you can fully control when that unit is activated. However, once one player runs out of tokens, the other player has full run of the place. Also, there are reactions, so you can put your units in overwatch if you know your opponent needs to activate something else to enter your range, or if you're outnumbered. But it has so many different layers to figuring out who goes first, how many command tokens they can place pre-emptively, and how much stuff each of their units gets to do.

[@luisbermudez4756]

Didn’t they just add a rule where the player with the fewest activations gets a number of skips equal to the difference between activations to prevent this?

[@jesterprince4949]

Apocalypse model really appeals to me for 40k. Or a command stat on character models that allows you to activate a certain number of other units (maybe up to 3 for Primarch/Silent king level units, 2 on captain, 1 on lieutenants ), their buffs only apply to those units. Still allows for blobs and buffs without a complete board wipe. You could possibly make it so units not activated by a hero can only react (overwatch, counter charge, fall back ect). Making spamming units not as useful so your incentivised to keep enough command units alive to keep your army going.

[@WardenOfTerra]

Alternate unit activations whilst being able to interrupt your opponents plan is by far the most fun way to play a tabletop wargame. It feels far more like a real-time event, which makes it far more dynamic. The worst system is what GW has for the main games. Most people don't even play GW's rules, and they buy into the models hoping that the rules will be 'fixed'.

[@nicholasleon7819]

i think what you said about most people not playing GW's rules is a sweeping generalization that may be based off your experience but i dont think comes anywhere close to being true.

[@adambarlev8992]

I quit killteam for Infinity 3 months ago and I'll never go back!

[@NeuralWraith]

@@adambarlev8992 killteam is alternating activation

[@uwesca6263]

I wonder how good alternating activations work if there is a big disparity between unit numbers. Like custodes and knights could have 7 units total while i saw guardslists that had as much infantry. And then additional as many tanks. If a force is outnumbered 2-3 to one than alternate activation seems worse than i go you go.

[@misomiso8228]

15:51 for all the criticism of GW, they're basic marketing (Space Marines!), and their general game system is very accessable.

[@TarnaxTheBarbarian]

The game system isnt accessible at all. Im speaking as someone who is new to playing 40K (liked the lore for years, but now getting into the game). Having to buy a core rules book, then an army rules book, then possibly (as in my case) a THIRD rules book for my faction is absurd. Especially when the actual book will be obselete in a couple months because GW has no idea how to actually balance anything. On top of that, the rules themselves arent even approachable. Honestly, after really wanting to do 40K, ill stick to OPR with 40K models.

[@RMCbreezy]

​@@TarnaxTheBarbarianit isnt intuitive because I doubt you've even played it. You have to understand the turn structure before you can even understand all the rules interactions. You don't need any books, just use wahapedia friend

[@bruced648]

37 years, 10 versions of rules hundreds of rules changes hundreds of units restricted, nerfed, banned or removed. you can keep playing a broken game that GW cannot make work constantly. I'll enjoy a proven game of 40+ years that uses considered simultaneous game play.

[@RMCbreezy]

@@bruced648 what game is that?

[@bruced648]

@RMCbreezy Battletech was released in 1984 as Battledroids. over the next 40 years; 5 releases of the rules same rules with only a few minor adjustments. nothing - nerfed, restricted, banned or removed. ability to play as; role-playing game battletroops - soldier squad combat battletech - mech combat Solaris VII - gladiator combat rules of warfare - full combined arms Alpha Strike - medium force combat Battleforce - large force combat battlespace - starship and planetary invasion succession wars - galaxy control warfare all of these use the same 2D6 mechanics. I can make a role-playing character and use that character in any of these levels of play (except for succession wars).

[@NikitaLapshov-k4f]

When i was learning warhammer, I go you go was the most confusing part, i re-read the rules like a hundred times, i was conviced it was alternating phases, because the alternative made no sense

[@SetaDragon]

Alternating activations has been the best way that I have played so far, with a big asterisk, it has to have something like opr's force organization rules that already limits the number of units you can field. For tokens, yes they were a problem, what we did for the North Carolina OPR group is 3d printed small trays that hold six 12mm cubes/dice. These serve for tracking wounds, activations, spell points and we made 12mm status cubes that fit it. That way they easily travel with the unit and don't break immersion too much since it is all compact. Any new member we just give some trays and cubes as a goody bag since they are dirt cheap to print.

[@SirSparrowify]

My friends and I are starting to get into OPR. Can you share the STLs for those trackers? They sound really useful.

[@Mercenary0712]

We've printed a bunch of tokens for OPR, got a nice bundle of them. Even when we don't use some, we still use the backside as markers of who got activated.

[@SetaDragon]

Status Tracker and Tray for OPR on t h i n g i v e r s e. Man it really does not want me to put this link.

[@naddyice5399]

I’m really enjoying these videos Matt! You’ve pretty much nailed a lot of discussions our group has had on the head when it comes to the activations conundrum, along with some other really interesting info. Thanks!

[@icebow2059]

If only half these people who left comments watched the video all the way through they’d understand that you’re not saying alternate activations suck and are all terrible and bad all the time. Very clear that people aren’t capable of having an opinion that’s different and able to have a good conversation about it. As you say, there’s good and bad things about both styles and I’ve found both to be fun for what they are. I don’t agree with everything you said but that’s the beauty of the hobby, absolutely nobody can have an opinion that everyone can agree with here. All we can do is pick the things we like and stick with them. Thank you for the video!

[@klo45pl]

I have watched this and the previous video and to me saying they both have good and bad sides is like saying driving by car and jumping on one leg blinfolded to get to a destination 10km away have their good and bad sides. Yeah sure alternating has problems that need to be adressed. But the worst problems with alternating pale in comparison to even middling problems with you go i go.

[@icebow2059]

@ I disagree but that’s the fun of the hobby, we all get to decide what we like and choose the system that works for us.

[@krobi26]

alternate activations seemed amazing until my buddy crushed me in One Page Rules using cheap throw away units combined with one or two giant hammer damage dealers. Who goes first and who goes last in those games is super important.

[@GreyHunter88]

Many games, such as Malifaux and A Song of Ice & Fire, are starting to add mechanics like 'pass tokens' to eliminate that interaction. So basically to make sure that no player can force the other to move their good units by spamming crappy ones.

[@Tulkash01]

I’m currently working on an homebrewed version of Mordheim. I can confirm the “I go, you go” activation system and the alternate activation system change the way the game is played significantly. Which is better? It’s difficult to say. The former allows for phases and in general gives more control to the player but it is slower as one player gets to do very little for quite some time. The latter system adds tactical depth and it has an easier time keeping both players involved but it is also a bit more dispersive .

[@Traven158]

I always liked Babylon 5 Wars' initiative die roll: -All units have an initiative value; this can be positive or negative, generally positive and high for fighter squadrons and low or negative for the larger capital ships -At the start of a turn, after Offensive and Defensive Electronic Warfare (i.e. Targeting) has been declared, each ship and fighter squadron rolls a d20 and adds their Initiative value (this can go beyond 20) -Units move in the order of their modified die roll from lowest roll to highest roll (roll-off if there’s a tie) -after all units have moved, every ship and squadron allocates their attacks. Weapons fire is resolved in simultaneous chunks; in order: --Ships resolve fire against squadrons --Ships resolve fire against ships --Squadrons resolve fire against squadrons --Squadrons resolve fire against ships

[@TheLofren]

How about alternate activations, but if a unit that hasn't been activated is destroyed it has to be activated one last time and then removed from the game?

[@lore1573-n3k]

very interesting, I'll look in to some of game cited. Can I ask you what do you think about the system used in Sharp Practice and Chain of Command?

[@celeb7295]

The most fun I had playing tabletop was with Guild Ball, an alternateing activation system where both sides get exactly 6 models that never permanently get removed. Removals before models could activate were of course huge, since it gave you an activation advantage, but that was just how the game worked. On top of that, it also had some limited amouint of reactions you could do in the oponent's activation. After that one, I fell off alternating activations, since the problem of activation economy is just too severe for me. That's why I play AoS now, which doies have I Go, You go with a good amount of reactions (and alternating combat activations). And tbh, if my opponent is a fun one, I'll not get bored in the opposing turn, just because I am not active.

[@PepperPawbs]

I’ve actually really enjoyed Infinity’s system. It’s basically IGOUGO but your opponent is constantly taking reactive actions throughout your play.

[@NeoHellPoet]

Apocalypse never caught on because it's the opposite of approachable. The cost of an apocalypse sized army, the time to paint it, the logistics of getting two armies in one place, the room required and the time to play is so monsterous, it's basically only ever good for conventions or rare events held by big gaming groups or clubs. And then actually playing the game is difficult, not because of the rules, because it's a lot of plastic that needs to be moved. The end result however isn't more entertaining than just a regular sized game, it's just a bigger spectacle. When the choice is between multiple regular games or one apocalypse game the former will almost always win out.

[@ArthurBugorski]

Board games often also have chit-pull as a system. Each unit has a token (or potentially more) and you draw a token out of a bag, and whatever unit it is, you move that unit. Memoir `44 is actually alternate activation, but you use cards from your hand to determine which units you can order.

[@ZakuPilot]

A while ago, my buddies and I started using Battletech's alternate activation system (with some slight tweaks) in 40k, and we're finding the matches are much more fun.

[@ataleofminiaturesanddice4745]

I think this is not a test took inspiration for the activation concept from the crossfire initiative system. If you don’t know it I recommend you look into crossfire, I reckon is a quite remarkable wargaming ruleset. About your question, Relicblade from Metalking studio is pure alternate activation. The only thing you can do in the opponent turn is to spend dodge tokens to try to limit damage. A couple special skills allow to move spending dodge tokens to move in the opponent turn or reposte to an attack but are very limited and marginal (this makes them really special). Some models can activate together with a companion. The game works well and it is good fun. It is a kitchen table skirmish played with 3-5 models normally, if you start spamming I am sure you can ruin the fun. I like it because it is simple, the art and the lore are crisp and it is very narrative driven.

[@danielebarolo9582]

A song of ice and fire has a great alternate activation, but cards you play can alter in some way it. Great video, keep it up

[@GreySectoid]

I'm already typing an angry comment

[@aytchpee]

The only real way to decide who goes first is to have a pushup competition at the top of each turn

[@themanrightbehindyou]

A lot of good points Matt. I feel like a lot of this boils down to the amount of agency the players should have during turns. You go I go has very little which is a big gripe for a lot of people. I generally prefer the simultaneous approach of battletech where I have to commit before I know my effectiveness. Or the grab bag random activation of bolt action or SW Legion. I like that I have to think on my feet and work with what I got like in a real battle. There is a lot of agency between players but very little certainty which allows control of decisions but not outcomes. That really sells the fantasy of a miniature battle in my mind.

[@andrewbakescakes9684]

Never played LOTR, but that does sound cool. I also like the simultaneous removal of casualties of Apocalypse. I think, across all these systems, there are some cool possibilities for combining the most fun and fair ideas into something new and wonderful.

[@jarekb7213]

All coming to "how often do I get interactions" and the more often is better :P There's alternate activations in Legions Imperialis in a LotR style - players alternate moves, then alternate first fire, then alternate advanced fire. There's ocasional overwatch. The game is very bloody - choosing which group to activate is to choose who is gonna shoot before it's shoot down.

[@andrewbakescakes9684]

Haven't played LI yet, but it looked really good. The battles appear to be more lore-authentic, because stuff dies so fast, but you also can't be alpha-striked like in 40K.

[@ericsmith9212]

Matt,you are just playing at semantics. My friends and I have adapted alternate activations and the order system from Legions Imperialis to 40k. It makes the game extremely better! As far as your example as an Elite army vs a balanced army isn't it the fault of the player bringing an elite list rather than a balanced list in that scenario?! The fact that you avoid alpha strikes and actually USE your models before they get blown off the table is a huge advantage in alternate activations. You can state that these games are not "true" or "pure" alternate activations,but the idea of it with reactions is solid .

[@andrewbakescakes9684]

I think it depends. In a melee game like Warcry, if you move your mid-units up the board first, while I activated scrub units but have leftover activations for tougher stuff, I can move my units into yours and you have no recourse. Whereas in shooting skirmish games, if I have elite units and you don't, then every one of my activations is more valuable that every one of yours, so I can do more damage with my turns then you. Yes, you would have a string of activations at the end, but you won't get your full count because your stuff will be dead.

[@ericsmith9212]

@@andrewbakescakes9684 that sounds more like an issue with Warcry. I haven't played that game,but it can't be very good.

[@andrewbakescakes9684]

@ - It needs polishing, for sure.

[@semajnollissor661]

One of the biggest issues with I-go-you-go games is the possibility of an alpha strike doing so much damage that the players that goes second is at a significant disadvantage. In tourneys, this is usually mitigated by having sufficient and specific terrain that breaks up line of sight. However, if you wanted to run a 40K version of the North African campaign, you'd have some problems. As you pointed out, one of the biggest issues with alternating activations is the possibility of an activation advantage, where one player can burn activations until their opponent runs out. Epic Armageddon had that issue when the Seigemasters of Baran list was released in the Swordwind supplement. You pointed out most of the ways the games designers have come up with to mitigate the issue, which are used in Apocalypse (based heavily on Epic Armageddon), Kill Team, and others. Of the two options, I prefer games with alternating activations, as the methods of 'fixing' the issues with such a system don't tend to limit game play as much as the methods used to 'fix' the issues with I-go-you-go games.

[@misomiso8228]

Rick Priestly talks a lot about Turn systems in relation to Warhammer Fantasy Battle, as he says the 'I go you go' turns, combined with having movement, shooting, combat, etc borken down into different phases, makes the game very easy for new players. If you compare the warhammer games something like Warmachine, where order of activation is so important, or alternate activation games where you have to 'know' what to prioritise to activate early, new players have an easier time. Having a 'Turn' where you are told when to be mentally switched on and engaged, and having that turn broken down into phases orders the players thinking and thus makes the mental load easier to take. The game 'Tells' you what to do in a sense.

[@LordGrendok]

I am pretty sure warcrow has a set number of alternate activations (regardless of how many units are in your army) and if any of your units were not activated on that game round they get to take one movement action

[@arved.jeltsch]

Hey Matt, thanks for the great video - a lot of food for thoughts! I really enjoy this kind of deep dive into game design! Keep up the great work!

[@colin_painting_adventure]

You always miss x-wing. It uses an initiative system were the lower initiative moves first but the higher initiative shoots first. For example: movement phase tie fighter, x-wing fighter, luke Skywalker, Darth Vader. Reverse this for the combat phase Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, x-wing fighter, tie fighter. I believe this takes into account a lot of the issues you bring up

[@InkandFish555]

What you describe as an issue doesn't sound like an issue. Your opponent wastes his activations on cheap weak units while your whole army gets to activate and act with all your best units. The player with a small number of units gets something closer to an IGoUGo turn.

[@whatTheFup]

WH40k Kill Team has alternate activation, with initiative roll each round/turning point. And, when you are done with your activations (as an elite unit team, or you have lost alot of units) your units can still react, retaliate/move, if they are on an engage order. Kill Team 2024 has its issues, but atleast your units arent useless after youve apent their activation

[@newrenaissance]

A true alternate is colt express. There are ways to increase alterntaiton, but what we really mean is interaction in a game, action points, initiative(leadership) can determine order of actions. You could have phase alternation: players deploy one after another, move one after another, shoot and so on. But how about we just say that a game where you roll to go first, get to activate everything you have and wipe 20-30% of value of opponents army on the regular, before they get to do anything, or else they have to take specific unite or factions to even interact, is bad. I know this is one of the chief reasons why i consume 40k content but i can never bring myself to play it.

[@kiwisteve4049]

That was a great video. I enjoyed your perspective and comparisons across game systems. I've played a bunch of the games mentioned and feel each system has its place. While a game could be "improved" with a change to activation order, it ceases to be the same game. I love infinity for the order/ARO system keeping both players involved, alternative activations in necromunda and battletech add to the fun, but the double turn idea of age of sigmar is one of its big factors. 40k was my first game, and alternative actions never made me like the game any less. In all these games, the thing that has made them fun or not fun to play for me has been the attitude of other players - are they playing to exploit gaps in the rules to win, or playing for the cinematic narrative feel of the games. Looking forward to your next video

[@GamemastersHobby]

Hey Matthew! Great video! I can't think of a miniatures game that is alternate activations with no exceptions or a game mechanic that allows a player to activate more miniatures in a row or react to the other player's actions. Wow! If you get the chance, check out Rackham's AT-43 activation "systems". The game has several alternatives when it comes to miniatures or unit activations that I think you would like. All of them use cards. Each unit included a couple of cards, you could use them as a reference card (all of the unit stats printed on the front) but you also used those cards to shuffle them up as an activation deck. The standard activation system allowed each player to lined up their activation deck face down. You reveal the top card when your turns comes and you have to activate that unit. BUT you could spend "command tokens" to send that card to the bottom of the deck or to place it "on hold" instead of activating a unit that turn (you could only do that once). An alternative activation system was a lot more random and crazy... All the players shared a common activation deck. The cards were all shuffled together and the common deck was passed along, the player in turn revealed the top card. If the card revealed was yours, you could put it aside and activate that unit later instead of activating the unit right away (paying the usual command tokens). If the card revealed was an enemy unit, you give the card to the owner and that player was forced to activate that unit without the option of setting it aside. It was a fun and exciting game mechanic, specially when you had more than two players or several factions in play. Thanks for doing these videos Matt! Love them!

[@177ace]

hey Matt, can you do a video on your thoughts on dice e.g. D6 vs D10 vs special dice usable only for a particular game, etc.

[@bruced648]

I learned early on (1987), that the 40k IGYG format is garbage. I had already been playing Battletech with 'considered simultaneous' game play for 3 years at that point. I've converted numerous games (including 40k) to play with considered simultaneous format. while there are a lot of good game systems that have unique methods of dividing the game turn between 2 or more players, I'm generally not interested. there is also a distinct difference between war games, board games and role-playing games. for a variety of reasons, it's comparing apples to oranges to kiwi, when trying to compare how a game turn sequence is applied for each type of game.

[@redfatherfigure]

The nice thing about the game letting your opponent do all his own stuff at once is I get to go to the bathroom without interrupting the game lol There are some players I wouldn't do this with. And yeah, if he's going to cheat while I'm in the bathroom, then congrats I guess? Winning at life? What's tough is doing that at tournaments, especially with chess clocks involved.

[@tommytymesaame6624]

When i first tryed warhammer i played with my dad neither of us knew the rules just that there was a phase order and how to shoot... kinda. Anyway what we just decided to do we just decided to take our turns by the phase like i move everything you move everything i shoot everything you shoot everything. It felt pretty good

[@ImperviousSC]

I haven't had a chance to play a game of it yet, but Frostgrave's system looks really interesting.

[@jessethemage8988]

I use Alternate Activations with my rulset for 40k. its alot of fun and brings new choices to the game and keeps you engaged in the game.

[@BobRobert8888]

I play 40k 4th edition core rules (with 3rd edition codexes) with alternating activations added in, players roll off and then alternate between units which get to do their full set of actions, it maybe skews game balance towards fast melee units but I would say that 3rd/4th were already a bit skewed that way anyways (I might consider using a MESBG style activation system too)

[@MentoliptusBanko]

I agree that 40K Apocalypse is very fun...but the problem is that it requires A LOT of models to play (or some really big and expensive models) so it has a bigger barrier of entry that regular 40K.

[@freeRadioArmageddon]

Be curious of a play mode or mission for ravage star that lets you activate two core or elite for one commander, two core for one support...

[@EvilVampMuffin]

Ain't base OPR just alt activation? Even between turns? Only time it don't is when one side runs out of units, which if that counts then yeah it aint

[@BryanLeeDavidson]

I like Savage Worlds use of playing card in initiative. Maybe that would be fun if you wanted to make everything random. Could be cool for induvial model like in Blood Bowl. You would just need a real small deck sometimes.

[@kieferbentley527]

Marvel Crisis Protocol I think has a very good alternate activation system. True alternate activation in my eyes. To beat the more models than your opponent spam, the player with less models gets a number of passes equal to the difference.

[@nicholasleon7819]

im really not a fan of alternate activation for mass battle games on the scale of 40k, and specifically horus heresy which is the main GW game system i play. for skirmish games i think alternate activation is fine but when playing full battle games about the only interruption to my turn i can stand is when the enemy fights back in combat.

[@colinbielat8558]

One hundred percent. Alternating activations only really work in small scale games like skirmish games but once you get to larger scale games it becomes ineffective. Honestly people who complain about waiting their turn are not doing what they are supposed to. It's during your opponents turn that you plan ahead for your turn, you watch what they are doing, anticipate what will happen and then make your own plan. 40k with alternating activations would give people migraines.

[@nicholasleon7819]

@@colinbielat8558 agreed

[@Paintinmyeye]

I might be missing something, but I believe Stargrave is pretty much purely alternating activations. Other than simultaneous fighting melee, everyone always starts with 10 models, and it is purely I move my guy, you move your guy, once we move all our guys any third parties go. They might have powers I am not thinking of, but I do not believe there are any true interrupts in that game, and we have not personally run into any issues with it.

[@Paintinmyeye]

Well, I already thought of a counterpoint in that stargrave has group activations with the captain and first mate, but to be fair both teams get exactly the same group activations

[@PirexianStalker]

Kill team is Alternate activation, we roll off for Turning point initiative (turn), then each player activates alternating one model at a time.

[@Fearior]

And it works in those systems because the designers can predict approximately how many units each side will field and how those forces will interact. However, in 'free-form' alternate activation games, players often exploit the system by taking a lot of cheap units to burn through the opponent's activations, while reserving a few elite units to act more effectively later in the turn.

[@samjsnz]

@ Kill team touched on this in previous edition by having GA (Group activation) where weaker operatives would have to activate together. Id love to see how this could scale to 40k, weak troop units could have GA3 so you have to activate 3 units at once.

[@dontbelievethehype11]

I think Marvel Crisis Protocol counts, you take it in turns picking a hero to use back and forth, your enemy can make deffence rolls and very rarely some may be able to fight back with super powers but its not every model and its my favourite game by far :)

[@LordGrendok]

And shatterpoint even takes this one step further because everyone has basically the same number of units, and it isn’t a game where you are really killing or removing units from the board very often

[@n3dstark]

My gaming group has switched from 40k to OPR purely because the alternative activations are more engaging and fun. Would it be possible to game the system? Probably, but we're playing narratively and so that problem hasn't arisen.

[@markwatson8714]

Ion Age is pretty pure alternate activation. Players roll initiative on a D6 at the start of the round, the number of activations they get is equal to the difference in the results (+1 for the winner). You then take it in turns to spend an activation (each unit can only be activated once). There's no interruptions of the sequence beyond units making return attacks if engaged in close combat or a firefight. Though I think it's a bit of a moot point. It's the pacing of the game that tends to be the problem - any system which leaves a player with nothing to do but watch their opponent play for more than a couple of minutes is likely to, with some justification, lead to complaints. As tends to be the issue with GW. Though as can also be argued, the problem there isn't the turn system itself, but the terrible job GW do at mitigation in the rules themselves (Infinity of course providing a good example of an IGO-UGO system that minimises player downtime).

[@owenchubb5449]

Both of my favourite games, Song of Ice and Fire TMG and Legions Imperialis work this way and even though what you say about actuvation spam is true, I find these games far more engaging than doing nothing for your opponents 20 minute movement phase

[@Deep-Red-0]

There's quite a bit of food for thought there, i like what Battletech did, which cleans up a lot of the 1-sided issues that always arise. Im going to have to watch this again and take notes. Thanks for the ideas.

[@bruced648]

battletech divides the game turn into 3 basic events. movement attacks damage resolution the players alternate moving units. then players alternate making attacks. then any damage takes effect. of course, this is massively simplified. but games with considered simultaneous game play is far better than IGYG format.

[@devonfarrell8994]

Love this new content! My son and I play 40K and I always say I wish it was more back and forth like chess

[@TyHunterX]

So you just took SW:Legion system... also- SW:Shatterpoint have real alternate activation

[@thel1chking]

It's the ONLY way to play games now. That's why so many people/systems have moved over. GW is still ancient and doesn't get how to make a good rules system.

[@haraldhenning897]

There is a plethora of games that have "passing mechanisms" that more or less restore the alternating rhythm even if one is considerably outmaned, which would put it in the "truly alternate activations" category. Malifaux would be my prime example here, Yes, there are singular (like less then a handfull out of the 700+ profiles in the game) that have abilities with which one could "break" this rhythm and ofc there is always the "I kill a guy that hasn't activated yet" tactic but that is honestly super nitpicky. Guild Ball takes the "both sides same model count" approach and has a mechanism that "returns" removed models to the table. Killteam as a "GW example" that also has more or less functional mechanisms here The important thing about this is not the balance though (ironically most alternating games are better balanced then GW's whole catalogue), but the gaming experience. "Sit there and wait/get a coffee/go to the washroom while you do your turn" is just not as engaging as "yourguy does his thing, now my guy etc". Additionally alternating forces you as a player to make "on the spot" decisions instead of "executing your game plan" which scratches my puzzle solving itch far better. While I appreciate the "immersion breaking" that tokens can cause, in many games you _can_ put the tokens next to the mini or on their unit card (again, Malifaux, Guildball, Warmachine etc). Though the aesthetics are a purely personal thing, I would refrain from making "quality assesments" based on that. I will grant you this grace though: As a "rule of thumb" Scirmish sized games are generally speaking more engaging and "better balanced" when you do alternating, Army-Scaled games (again, generally speaking) "work better" when doing IgoUgo due to the way the forces are constructed. The devil remains in the details obviously, though this has been my observation over ~25 years in the hobby and having played/read/tested dozens of games.

[@Akiosama1009]

I love Infinity’s system, but the issue of cheerleaders (having models just to generate orders for use on the elite models) and the amount of time a turn takes (along with determining LOS for all models every time an action is taken are two issues that I’ve heard a lot of comments on. It’s kinda weird to have a bunch of models that aren’t doing anything for most of the game (generally just hiding to protect orders while the more powerful or more elite units are the ones moving in the game. In addition, Infinity does have issues where the active player can be at a disadvantage during their turn due to the type of unit with LOS (Snipers with B1 weapons being the key example of this - being one roll per shot already means they don’t have any major disadvantage to firing on an ARO) can actually do more damage in reaction than on their action. And attrition is rough due to the loss of actions each time a model dies. Don’t get me wrong - I love the game. The reactive style of play keeps everyone in the game, but three turns for a full game is a tad rough strategically (though any more turns and the game would be too long time-wise - it’s the curse of AROs). The miniatures are fantastic, but not many stores stock it (at least in my locale), which also means not many people play it. And it still has a bit of the same issue that WFB players (primarily, but I’ve heard it from 40k players too), where you have to buy and paint minis that mostly act as tokens. Oh, and the LT rules don’t really give much benefit to the LT (one extra action per turn but major downsides if they’re killed), to the point that often a grunt is the LT despite the elites in the force, and they tend to hide and not really use the LT action. Doesn’t really seem to make sense for a Warlord to be a nothing unit that just hides all game. I’m looking forward to seeing N5 though to see what changes they’re planning. Thanks for the video - I enjoyed the analysis of many of the games I’ve heard of or played out there!

[@CatchFlipsidE]

My best guess as to why Infinity hasn’t taken off… metal models. If they went plastic, I have a feeling their market would jump drastically.

[@ayalde]

Interesting. I hadnt really thought about that because im not a seasoned player. Im really new tbh. Still, i think it feels like a balance thing, trying to avoid or reduce the advantage of the one that goes first. I also think that the mechanics are determined by the “feel” you’re looking for.

[@doctor8bricks]

If 40K moved to alternate activation, then it becomes an entirely new game. Adding an AA system doesn't stop the other from existing.

[@zraal3759]

There is no perfect system, but I am of the opinion that classic battletech has the best turn system. It is alternating each phase with number of units each time being based on how how much one system outnumbers the other and adjusts as units are eliminated. The down side of the battletech turn system is that it is one of the slowest.

[@grlmgor]

*You forgot the 5 year olds favorite turn type* I go, I go

[@GirlPainting]

Example games with perfect alternative activations: Chess, Checkeers ^^

[@mathsteck]

This is not how Warcry works. You have reactions and you can keep holding 1 or 2 actions until you use them

[@DasDevilSquid]

Where would you put Trench Crusade? Seems pretty Alternative, although you can push for activation advantage, but there's even something baked in to balance that.

[@mfarl2001]

De Bellus Antiquates is a IGO-UGO game, melee and shooter vs Shooter combats are opposed rolls. But one player takes their turn then to opposite player. I enjoy the vast array of historical opponents to pick from.

[@vinsey1]

Mantic's Deadzone. You can pass if your opponent has more activations and also have a double turn with command dice. No system is prefect but I-go u-go feels less good now we have seen some great alternatives. For example, Iron Cross / 7 Days to the River Rhine have really fun activation / reaction system.

[@johnadam4117]

I think all systems have downsides but its how the system midigates the downside. I think you go I go has a big downside of the other player not being engaged enough during the game. I think alternating actions also has the problem of being so slow for bigger games. But if games actually put effort in to midigate all of the downsides it makes it much more fun and will probably prosper.

[@johnadam4117]

Hot take strategems are bad for the game So are any other interruption mechanisms.

[@StorminWolf]

Alternate Activations usually go hand in hand with other mechanisms like overwatch, interrupting, action points, (infinity, Urban War) or beforehand selecting which units are going (confrontation), or drawing dice or chips from a bag (Bolt Action being a prime example), or blindly deciding which mini makes what move, then moving at the same time and then continue attcakc etc on that (Crimson Skies, X wing, Aeronautica Imperialis). I have not played any Miniature Wargame that is pure Alternate activation.